Future of apt-cyg

[mosbth]

Hi, I see your last commit, regarding the message in README.

-STATUS UPDATE 1-24-2016:
 ------------------------
 +And now back to apt-cyg ;)

 -Over the weekend apt-cyg lost it's only active maintainer. Since I am working on other things now, 
 -this project is basically read-only. That means I won't be responding to bug reports or issues.
 -
 -If you have a problem with apt-cyg:
 -
 -1. You might be able to fork it and fix it yourself, if you enjoy BASH programming
 -2. Look for forks with an active maintainer, pick one that works for you, vote it up.
 -
 -And now back to apt-cyg...

Should we consider transcode-open/apt-cyg to be main repo of apt-cyg and continue to report issues/pull reqs here, or should we actively look for another home of apt-cyg?

Do you need volunteers?

What do you propose?

[idarlund]

Any news on this one? Is the project dead?

[alphapapa]

I don't think it's dead. It's fairly mature and stable. It lacks some advanced features that would be nice to have. They can be added someday. Pull requests are welcome, I'm sure. For example, adding the upgrade function probably wouldn't be that difficult.

[jingsam]

@alphapapa check this https://github.com/svnpenn/sage/issues/2 https://github.com/svnpenn/sage/issues/3 It seems we should abandon apt-cyg, use sage instead.

[alphapapa]

@jingsam I don't recommend that. See #73 (comment)

[jingsam]

I do some digging, trying to figure out what happened. I definitely agree with that transcode-open owns this repo. However, I doubt that how much he contribute to apt-cyg. Let's check his commit history:

6 commits over last year! It seems that what transcode-open actually own is the name of this repo. He did not respond to users, not maintain the code, just let this project die.

I am happy to see svnopen fork this project and actively maintain it. I think the owner of apt-cyg should be the one who cares about it.

[alphapapa]

@jingsam I feel like you didn't read very much of the comment I linked.

What Mr. Jungels owns is the copyright to the original code (perhaps most of the current code, as well), this repo, and the copyright on the name. What Mr. Penny owns is the copyright to the code he has contributed.

The phrase "the owner of apt-cyg" may mean different things to different people. But since this is Free Software, it's not very relevant--at least, until someone starts making false legal claims to attempt a hostile takeover of the project.

If you feel comfortable with the actions of the fork's author, you're welcome to use the fork. That's the point of Free Software: to empower users. However, I do not trust a developer who does such things, and I cannot in good conscience recommend that anyone use his software.

In the meantime, apt-cyg remains functional and useful, and anyone may improve it and submit patches.

[native-api]

https://github.com/kou1okada/apt-cyg appears to be the most active fork.
It doesn't appear to honor the setup's repo preference though (as of this writing) and has fallen prey to scope creep (a noticeable share of its features belong in a package installer for the utility rather than the utility itself), so I cannot recommend it.

[ilatypov]

@alphapapa I noticed kou1okada used setup*.exe. I tried using a secondary root idea with an in-place post-install script invocation as a last step in my pull #88.

[native-api]

Alternatively, @transcode-open can invite collaborator(s) to maintain the project in his stead.